Manually lower hammer in Production

[JThompson]

But not surprising. If the only way a shooter with a gun on the approved list is able to compete is by commiting an action subject to DQ, there is something wrong with the rules. Specifically if you did have to use the trigger to lower the hammer on a gun with a decocker it is a DQ under 10.5.9. And when the rules says, Hammer down or decocked, that to me means that it is pretty obvious that decocked is a valid start position regardless of where the hammer is. The rule requires a DA first shot, which whether the hammer is down or at half cock, it's still DA.

10.5.9

Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading,

reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make

Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking

lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

I would think this would do for one with a decock if we needed, but as was said, some will not go fully down anyway. I guess the only issue is do we even it up by allowing everyone to go half.

Edited March 1, 2008 by JThompson

[eerw]

I think they will have to go back to the wording fully down or decocked..

if you allow everyone the opportunity to start at half..you create a false need by shooters to do so..and now while trying to make ready..they are trying to land their hammer on the half cock notch..

but I guess. if the gun ADs..its already decided what the outcome is..

just to note..on guns like the CZ without the decocker..its easy enough to modify the DA connector to shorten the DA stroke..get the hammer to drop sooner and still get reliable ignition. so you can have the advantage of the short DA stroke as starting at the half cock.

or just practice..

[Gary Stevens]

Two cents on the way. I usually default to the plain reading of a rule using the common usage of the words. The rule reads to me that if you shoot a gun without a decocker, you must place the hammer fully down by use of the trigger. If you shoot a gun that has a decocker function, using that decocker in the manner the factory intended it to be used is also allowed.

So it boils down to if you have a decocker use it and holster the gun. If you do not have a decocker, put the hammer fully down by use of the trigger and holster the gun.

Gary

[eerw]

Two cents on the way. I usually default to the plain reading of a rule using the common usage of the words. The rule reads to me that if you shoot a gun without a decocker, you must place the hammer fully down by use of the trigger. If you shoot a gun that has a decocker function, using that decocker in the manner the factory intended it to be used is also allowed.

So it boils down to if you have a decocker use it and holster the gun. If you do not have a decocker, put the hammer fully down by use of the trigger and holster the gun.

Gary

Gary..

now that's a nice interpretation..thanks..

[AikiDale]

Really Gary, folks are having a great time arguing over which end of the egg it is proper to open and you come along like some Eastern Kentucky country boy with common sense and point out the egg tastes the same either way.

[Chuck Anderson]

But not surprising. If the only way a shooter with a gun on the approved list is able to compete is by commiting an action subject to DQ, there is something wrong with the rules. Specifically if you did have to use the trigger to lower the hammer on a gun with a decocker it is a DQ under 10.5.9. And when the rules says, Hammer down or decocked, that to me means that it is pretty obvious that decocked is a valid start position regardless of where the hammer is. The rule requires a DA first shot, which whether the hammer is down or at half cock, it's still DA.

10.5.9

Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading,

reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make

Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking

lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

I would think this would do for one with a decock if we needed, but as was said, some will not go fully down anyway. I guess the only issue is do we even it up by allowing everyone to go half.

I must be missing something becuase to me that pretty clearly reads that the exception only applies to guns without a decocking lever. How do you apply that exception to a gun with a decocking lever. There doesn't seem to be a way to me without rewriting that rule.

That said, Gary's explanation of the rule seems perfect to me and was the understanding I had before all this started.

[JThompson]

But not surprising. If the only way a shooter with a gun on the approved list is able to compete is by commiting an action subject to DQ, there is something wrong with the rules. Specifically if you did have to use the trigger to lower the hammer on a gun with a decocker it is a DQ under 10.5.9. And when the rules says, Hammer down or decocked, that to me means that it is pretty obvious that decocked is a valid start position regardless of where the hammer is. The rule requires a DA first shot, which whether the hammer is down or at half cock, it's still DA.

10.5.9

Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading,

reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make

Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking

lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

I would think this would do for one with a decock if we needed, but as was said, some will not go fully down anyway. I guess the only issue is do we even it up by allowing everyone to go half.

I must be missing something becuase to me that pretty clearly reads that the exception only applies to guns without a decocking lever. How do you apply that exception to a gun with a decocking lever. There doesn't seem to be a way to me without rewriting that rule.

That said, Gary's explanation of the rule seems perfect to me and was the understanding I had before all this started.

My point was you could change that section to allow it....

As to what Gary said, we are back to something that could be considered an unfair ad. Look, I shoot open, I have no dog in the fight, but I like rules to be equal from one to another. This is production after all... the point is to make them as close as you can from one manuf to another.

Also, I feel the way it's written now... you can not allow it. imo the wording needs revision. What the hell do I know though... I'm not even an RO.

Edited March 1, 2008 by JThompson

[AikiDale]

I guess where the evil of interpretation comes into this is that if a gun, such as the OP's, has a non-functioning decocking lever then it has no decocking lever. In my book that would allow the exception. There are two reasons for my interpretation:

1. I guarantee you there are a whole lot of guns out there with which I am not familiar and heartless as it may sound I just don't care.

2. If you can lower the hammer with the assistance of the trigger with one gun then you can do it with all of them.

[rvb]

Really Gary, folks are having a great time arguing over which end of the egg it is proper to open and you come along like some Eastern Kentucky country boy with common sense and point out the egg tastes the same either way.

I think for the most part, the folks here are on the same page, use the decocker or if non exists thumb it down. And I think that's how the rules read, just like you and Gary.

The question/concern comes from this from Amidon and it's impact to pistols that do not decock "all the way down" (CZs/Sigs/HKs?/etc?):

Yup... that about sums it up.

"Fully decocked is all the way down, half cocked is just that. So it would

have to be lowered manually if the decocker did not bring it all the way down."

John Amidon

VP USPSA

Director NROI

I shoot a Beretta 92, decocked "all the way" and I'm happy to do so, so I don't have a dog in the fight, other than I think it's silly for someone with a CZ75 to not be able to just use the decocker. That's how the pistol was designed to be used, nothing "gamey" about it, imo. BTW, a Sig won't even operate from "fully decocked" if the spring that brings the hammer to the half-cock is missing or broken.

Edited March 1, 2008 by rvb

[Nik Habicht]

This is production after all... the point is to make them as close as you can from one manuf to another.

What the hell do I know though... I'm not even an RO.

I don't think that's the point of production --- and I suspect that most production that most production shooters won't buy into that line of thinking. But to convert that analogy to open division --- surely C-more's should be the only sights allowed, Safariland 012s the only holster, and STI/SVI the only legal frame --- otherwise someone might have an advantage over other competitors in the division, by virtue of choosing a Glock, Para, or Caspian; a Limcat or Gugas Ribas; a Doktor or J-point or Tasco or Accupoint or Holosight. Can't have that, better interpret the rules differently......

RO Class --- that might be a good idea.....

[JThompson]

This is production after all... the point is to make them as close as you can from one manuf to another.

What the hell do I know though... I'm not even an RO.

I don't think that's the point of production --- and I suspect that most production that most production shooters won't buy into that line of thinking. But to convert that analogy to open division --- surely C-more's should be the only sights allowed, Safariland 012s the only holster, and STI/SVI the only legal frame --- otherwise someone might have an advantage over other competitors in the division, by virtue of choosing a Glock, Para, or Caspian; a Limcat or Gugas Ribas; a Doktor or J-point or Tasco or Accupoint or Holosight. Can't have that, better interpret the rules differently......

RO Class --- that might be a good idea.....

There is something there or John wouldn't have even kicked it to the BOD. The point of production is to keep things equal and quell the arms race. If that wasn't the case then why have rules set for what is allowed and what is not? They do that to keep things even and make sure that one gun doesn't have a significant advantage. New guns have to be approved to be legal, so in terms of production you are limited to what guns you can choose from.

Your analogy to open is flawed in that the division is geared to whatever the hell you want to run. That has no relationship to production at all.

About the RO class... I don't think that would help since John kicked it upstairs.

[Gary Stevens]

Actually nothing unusual about any of this. The DNROI has advised us of any pending interpretations for several years now. It gives us an opportunity to make comments and discuss the interpretation before it is posted. It is a much cleaner process this way.

[Skywalker]

Two cents on the way. I usually default to the plain reading of a rule using the common usage of the words. The rule reads to me that if you shoot a gun without a decocker, you must place the hammer fully down by use of the trigger. If you shoot a gun that has a decocker function, using that decocker in the manner the factory intended it to be used is also allowed.

So it boils down to if you have a decocker use it and holster the gun. If you do not have a decocker, put the hammer fully down by use of the trigger and holster the gun.

Gary

Which is exactly what has been ruled for IPSC, as I posted a couple of pages ago.

On the subject topic: I don't know for USPSA, but for IPSC

1. If the gun is equipped with a decocker mechanism, then this has to be used, and it doesn't matter if the final result is hammer fully down or on half cock notch, provided you fully operate the device the gun is equipped with.
   
2. if the gun doesn't feature a decocker, you have to manually lower the hammer to full down position; you can't lower it to half cock notch.
   

You can read it here.

[eerw]

John just responded that the BOD is the governing body on the rules and he has kicked the decision up to them. He said that he wasn't sure if it would result in an NROI interpretation or not but that he'll give me an update when the decision is made. Looks like it's a waiting game now.

Two cents on the way. I usually default to the plain reading of a rule using the common usage of the words. The rule reads to me that if you shoot a gun without a decocker, you must place the hammer fully down by use of the trigger. If you shoot a gun that has a decocker function, using that decocker in the manner the factory intended it to be used is also allowed.

So it boils down to if you have a decocker use it and holster the gun. If you do not have a decocker, put the hammer fully down by use of the trigger and holster the gun.

Gary

so given that this has been kicked up to the BOD.

can we just go by Gary's very valuable pennies

if you have a decocker use it and holster the gun. If you do not have a decocker, put the hammer fully down by use of the trigger and holster the gun.

[Flexmoney]

If the BOD makes the call on this (which sounds like what is in the works), then it will come out as an "official ruling". That would be published on the USPSA rules page.

[3 gun]

I'm not sure IPSC says what you think it says. The "new" USPSA rule is more in line with the wording from IPSC. To bring USPSA and IPSC closer in alignment was my guess for the rule change in the first place.

From the IPSC rule book;

8.1.2 Self-loading Pistols:

8.1.2.1 “Single action” – chamber loaded, hammer cocked, and the safety engaged.

8.1.2.2 “Double action” – chamber loaded, hammer fully down or de-cocked.

Then in the IPSC rule book appendix D4 Production, it says;

17. Single-action-only handguns are prohibited. Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked. First

shot attempted must be double action. Competitors in this Division who, after the issuance of the start signal and

prior to attempting the first shot, cock the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber, will incur one

procedural penalty per occurrence. Note that a procedural penalty will not be assessed in respect of courses of

fire where the ready condition requires the competitor to prepare the handgun with an empty chamber. In these

cases, the competitor may fire the first shot single action.

So the question remains is fully decocked the hammer at full mechanical rest in its forward most position or is fully decocked where ever the hammer falls when you use the decock lever? As far as I can tell this point has never been addressed in IPSC.

Edited March 8, 2008 by 3 gun

[revchuck]

I'm not sure IPSC says what you think it says. The "new" USPSA rule is more in line with the wording from IPSC. To bring USPSA and IPSC closer in alignment was my guess for the rule change in the first place.

From the IPSC rule book;

8.1.2 Self-loading Pistols:

8.1.2.1 “Single action” – chamber loaded, hammer cocked, and the safety engaged.

8.1.2.2 “Double action” – chamber loaded, hammer fully down or de-cocked.

Then in the IPSC rule book appendix D4 Production, it says;

17. Single-action-only handguns are prohibited. Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked. First

shot attempted must be double action. Competitors in this Division who, after the issuance of the start signal and

prior to attempting the first shot, cock the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber, will incur one

procedural penalty per occurrence. Note that a procedural penalty will not be assessed in respect of courses of

fire where the ready condition requires the competitor to prepare the handgun with an empty chamber. In these

cases, the competitor may fire the first shot single action.

So the question remains is fully decocked the hammer at full mechanical rest in its forward most position or is fully decocked where ever the hammer falls when you use the decock lever? As far as I can tell this point has never been addressed in IPSC.

This is my first time posting in this part of the forum, but...

"8.1.2.2 “Double action” – chamber loaded, hammer fully down or de-cocked." The plain reading of this is that there are two ways the hammer may be: fully down or decocked. One can assume that the folks who came up with this were aware that some guns don't drop the hammer fully down when decocked. If they wanted the hammer fully down on all guns, they would have stated that. With all respect, I think you're reading into the rules rather than reading the rules.

[Skywalker]

I'm not sure IPSC says what you think it says.

I am, that's why I posted a link to the offical IPSC forum, where the question has been officially answered.

[SA Friday]

"8.1.2.2 “Double action” – chamber loaded, hammer fully down or de-cocked." The plain reading of this is that there are two ways the hammer may be: fully down or decocked. One can assume that the folks who came up with this were aware that some guns don't drop the hammer fully down when decocked. If they wanted the hammer fully down on all guns, they would have stated that. With all respect, I think you're reading into the rules rather than reading the rules.

Rev, when writing the USPSA 2008 rules, the BOD didn't initially know that changing the distance from the belt would essentially outlaw the Blade-tech DOH in production. None of them were production shooters (not sure about now after the elections). I'm not sure that any of us can assume that the BoD or anyone else has addressed this issue before if the questions from this productive discussion have risen to the level where the BoD will make an official ruling on the matter.

[revchuck]

"8.1.2.2 “Double action” – chamber loaded, hammer fully down or de-cocked." The plain reading of this is that there are two ways the hammer may be: fully down or decocked. One can assume that the folks who came up with this were aware that some guns don't drop the hammer fully down when decocked. If they wanted the hammer fully down on all guns, they would have stated that. With all respect, I think you're reading into the rules rather than reading the rules.

Rev, when writing the USPSA 2008 rules, the BOD didn't initially know that changing the distance from the belt would essentially outlaw the Blade-tech DOH in production. None of them were production shooters (not sure about now after the elections). I'm not sure that any of us can assume that the BoD or anyone else has addressed this issue before if the questions from this productive discussion have risen to the level where the BoD will make an official ruling on the matter.

Well, as a revolver shooter, I guess I should have known better than to assume (there's that acronym!) such a thing. But then all them bottomfeeders look alike...

I guess I should edit that "One can assume..." to "One would expect..."?

[3 gun]

Not having the super secret password to get to the linked forum I could only refer to what is published as IPSC rules and and reversions from the IPSC web site. I would say that the definition in the App D4 for the start position with an exposed hammer to be the clarification to any question to 8.1.2.2.

If I were shooting Production in a major match any time before a USPSA BoD ruling is published as official, I would lower my exposed hammer from a half cocked notch. I would also question why if IPSC has ruled on this it is not reflected on the rules link on the IPSC site.

Hopefully USPSA won't leave it to chance that a member just happens to belong to the right web forum.

[Skywalker]

I would also question why if IPSC has ruled on this it is not reflected on the rules link on the IPSC site.

The rule is in the rulebook, and it's published on IPSC website.

The interpretation of the rule is also published on the IPSC website.

The discussion originated by people who still didn't understand either the rule or the interpretation is on the IPSC forum.

Do you need anything else?

Hopefully USPSA won't leave it to chance that a member just happens to belong to the right web forum.

As I wrote above, you can read an answer from the FAQ section of IPSC website as well: see Q. #11. This addresses the "no-decocker lever" guns part.

The other part of the question is answered by the rulebook in section 8.1.2.2

8.1.2.2 “Double action” – chamber loaded, hammer fully down or de-cocked.

. Thus, combining the two parts, you get that:

- If the gun doesn't have a decocker lever, the hammer must be manually lowered to full down, as stated by 8.1.2.2 ("hammer fully down" part).

- If the gun has a decocker lever, then the "decocked" part of rule 8.1.2.2 applies.

Last, there's no supersecret password needed to read the official IPSC forum, you just have to join it with your real name.

USPSA does require everybody wishing to read certain areas of its website (e.g. match results) to join USPSA ranks, thus I see the same logic applied.

Why does everything has to boild down to USPSA vs. IPSC on this forum? What happened to the friendly attitude of shooters talking to other shooters that permeated this forum until a few years ago?

[JThompson]

You make good points Luca.

At this point I think we can just wait for the ruling.

Edited March 9, 2008 by JThompson

[Chuck Anderson]

I still like IPSC Luca. And I fully agree with your argument. I really didn't think this was that big of an issue. It seems pretty clearly spelled out to me in the rules. I think the only difference between USPSA and IPSC on this is the prohibition about cocking the hammer after the start signal.

[Chuck Anderson]

New ruling that should be on the NROI Interpreatations page soon.

Manufacturers have installed decockers to take the hammer safely to a position that is deemed safe, therefore; the term fully decocked is the position that the hammer rest at once the decocker has been used. Altering a factory installed decocker to bring the hammer to rest at less than a half cocked position is not allowed.

John Amidon

VP USPSA

Director NROI